Essentially, this note is another me too. On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
(iv) If that note is acceptable to the authors/ editors/ WG/ etc., generation of a document that incorporates the changes. That version is, or is not, posted at the discretion of the RFC Editor and/or WG Chair and/or AD. In other words, the document editor prepares a clean draft with the RFC Editor note(s) incorporated, rather than expecting the RFC Editor to do so. If a draft is posted at (ii), it implies that significant changes have occurred and may trigger the re-review to which Spencer refers. The IESG approval at (iii) is considered final and the document at (iv) simply an editorial matter of splicing the changes in. If that latter document is posted at all, it is with the understanding that additional substantive comments, or even post-IESG fine-tuning, are inherently disruptive and time-consuming and that they should not be accepted unless they raise new, very significant, showstopper-level issues. Otherwise, we would never finish anything.
Personally I would like to see that whatever document enters into the RFC-Production function (to use the terminology from the RFC Editor model[*]) has a clean copy in the repository. That allows for a very clean interface between the streams and the RFC-producer. So, I would argue that the result of (iv) is always posted.
I can imagine that the posting of an I-D may cause Pavlovian reactions but maybe there are means by which one can prevent folk to mistake the posting of such I-D as another request for review.
--Olaf [*] For those for who this terminology is new see: http://www.iab.org/documents/resources/RFC-Editor-Model.html
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf